What's to counter ? I think most of us doing something similar have the same or better results. You can do nothing and have blockages worsen, or be proactive and get about a 5% improvement per year. That is the number that Dr. Dean Ornish reported about 10 years ago. That article you cite in the link is from 1990 !!

I could not chase after a small dog a few months after bypass surgery. Now I can try almost anything, even forego part of my mandatory warm-up, and not feel anything in my heart.

I've not had an angiogram in almost exactly 6 years. But I am so improved, there really is no need to check anything, except maybe to figure out where my heart's wonderful blood supply is coming from.

DMW

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietWhat's to counter ? I think most of us doing something similar have the same or better results. You can do nothing and have blockages worsen, or be proactive and get about a 5% improvement per year. That is the number that Dr. Dean Ornish reported about 10 years ago. That article you cite in the link is from 1990 !!

I could not chase after a small dog a few months after bypass surgery. Now I can try almost anything, even forego part of my mandatory warm-up, and not feel anything in my heart.

I've not had an angiogram in almost exactly 6 years. But I am so improved, there really is no need to check anything, except maybe to figure out where my heart's wonderful blood supply is coming from.

... 40.0 (SD 16.9)% to 37.8 (16.5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42.7 (15.5)% to 46.1 (18.5)% in the control group.

SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.

For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!

... 40.0 (SD 16.9)% to 37.8 (16.5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42.7 (15.5)% to 46.1 (18.5)% in the control group.

SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.

For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!

Maybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietMaybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?

It is my understanding that even a small regression increases the flow of blood through the arteries by some geometric amount, that is a small increase in diameter means an even larger increase in blood flow. Even if it doesn't regress it is a positive occurrence if it doesn't progress. Arteries don't get to be 80% blocked overnight so why would you expect only one year's time to give you the arteries you were born with.,

I also always like to know exactly what the experimental diet is. Maybe it wasn't what many of us would consider a healthy low fat diet. I remember one low fat diet study in which the low fat eaters were consuming 29% fat and by the end of the study they were eating just about as much fat as the control group, Yet the results were reported as being from eating low fat.

Dolores

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietIt is my understanding that even a small regression increases the flow of blood through the arteries by some geometric amount, that is a small increase in diameter means an even larger increase in blood flow. Even if it doesn't regress it is a positive occurrence if it doesn't progress. Arteries don't get to be 80% blocked overnight so why would you expect only one year's time to give you the arteries you were born with.,

I also always like to know exactly what the experimental diet is. Maybe it wasn't what many of us would consider a healthy low fat diet. I remember one low fat diet study in which the low fat eaters were consuming 29% fat and by the end of the study they were eating just about as much fat as the control group, Yet the results were reported as being from eating low fat.

No, not good enough! Marginal results and bad papers hurt people by deflecting their attention from seeking true causes and much more powerful remedies. They give people a false sense of security and dulls their awarness of danger. A single percentage decrease in lumen, holy smoke! On average! - while about a half of his patients got actually worse! Pathetic!

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietNo, not good enough! Marginal results and bad papers hurt people by deflecting their attention from seeking true causes and much more powerful remedies. They give people a false sense of security and dulls their awarness of danger. A single percentage decrease in lumen, holy smoke! On average! - while about a half of his patients got actually worse! Pathetic!

Re: "SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.

For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!

This is a prime example of bad science!Stan (Heretic)"

I'm sorry. You have forgotten all of your statistics. For example "Both changes are about five tims smaller than the standard deviation! This is a prime example of bad science"

In a case like this, the results can be very statistically significant, or not, depending on the sample size.

You are a brilliant man. Instead of working to support your beliefs, work to support the truth.

Re: "SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.

For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!

This is a prime example of bad science!Stan (Heretic)"

I'm sorry. You have forgotten all of your statistics. For example "Both changes are about five tims smaller than the standard deviation! This is a prime example of bad science"

In a case like this, the results can be very statistically significant, or not, depending on the sample size.

You are a brilliant man. Instead of working to support your beliefs, work to support the truth.

In Dr. Ornish's experiment with heart patients, they improved on the Ornish diet, and got worse in the control group, on standard medical care, on whatever diet their doctors ordered. The angiogram measurement simply were an unbiased measurement reflecting that the Ornish group was improving. Before Ornish ran this study, he could not get NIH funding, and had to raise the money himself from private industry (including Enron). Doctors said it was not possible to reverse atherosclerosis. After Dr. Ornish demonstrated that it could be reversed, the same people complained that it didn't reverse fast enough!

Also, Dr. Ornish did not use statins, and the control group probably did. This worked against Dr. Ornish's group, since Statins do contribute to reversal of atherosclerosis. However, this work was published in 1990, before the benefits of statins were clearly demonstrated. Today, Ornish and the doctors in this movement, prescribe statins for patients while they are at risk for heart attacks or strokes.

In Dr. Ornish's experiment with heart patients, they improved on the Ornish diet, and got worse in the control group, on standard medical care, on whatever diet their doctors ordered. The angiogram measurement simply were an unbiased measurement reflecting that the Ornish group was improving. Before Ornish ran this study, he could not get NIH funding, and had to raise the money himself from private industry (including Enron). Doctors said it was not possible to reverse atherosclerosis. After Dr. Ornish demonstrated that it could be reversed, the same people complained that it didn't reverse fast enough!

Also, Dr. Ornish did not use statins, and the control group probably did. This worked against Dr. Ornish's group, since Statins do contribute to reversal of atherosclerosis. However, this work was published in 1990, before the benefits of statins were clearly demonstrated. Today, Ornish and the doctors in this movement, prescribe statins for patients while they are at risk for heart attacks or strokes.

Re: "Maybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?"

Yes, in a separate publication the Ornish group, without statins, had half the heart attacks compared to the standard medical care group.

The Esselstyn study had 18 patients, who were worse on the average at the start of the study, who had no heart attacks or cardiac events, for 22 years. Why was Esselstyn more successful? Esselstyn was more strict on the diet, emphatically zero animal protein (zero meat, fish, poultry or dairy - sorry Heretic), and measured blood cholesterol once every 2 weeks for the first 5 years of the study. They could not cheat !! Also, Esselstyn used statins.

Hi Dolores,

Yes, you are right, that a 6% increase in the lumen diameter, reflects a much higher percentage increase in blood flow. As shown in the short abstract, looking only at blockages greater than 50%, the reversal was larger. As the short abstract said, 80% of the patients (from memory) had improved, larger lumen openings. This was done with randomized readings of the angiograms, where the person reading the angiogram, did not know which angiogram was the "before" and which was the "after".

The study was actually quite impressive, as it was the first demonstration of reversal of atherosclerosis in humans. The results also show the benefit of being completely strict, as Esselstyn's results are the best ever published in a medical journal.

Heretic, if you disagree, theories are fine, but results are preferred.

Re: "Maybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?"

Yes, in a separate publication the Ornish group, without statins, had half the heart attacks compared to the standard medical care group.

The Esselstyn study had 18 patients, who were worse on the average at the start of the study, who had no heart attacks or cardiac events, for 22 years. Why was Esselstyn more successful? Esselstyn was more strict on the diet, emphatically zero animal protein (zero meat, fish, poultry or dairy - sorry Heretic), and measured blood cholesterol once every 2 weeks for the first 5 years of the study. They could not cheat !! Also, Esselstyn used statins.

Hi Dolores,

Yes, you are right, that a 6% increase in the lumen diameter, reflects a much higher percentage increase in blood flow. As shown in the short abstract, looking only at blockages greater than 50%, the reversal was larger. As the short abstract said, 80% of the patients (from memory) had improved, larger lumen openings. This was done with randomized readings of the angiograms, where the person reading the angiogram, did not know which angiogram was the "before" and which was the "after".

The study was actually quite impressive, as it was the first demonstration of reversal of atherosclerosis in humans. The results also show the benefit of being completely strict, as Esselstyn's results are the best ever published in a medical journal.

Heretic, if you disagree, theories are fine, but results are preferred.

H or anyone. Can you point me to a study that shows stabilization of plaques and reversal also using a very low carb, high fat diet? Not risk factor improvements, but angiograms. Does Davis use angiograms in his track your plaque program? If he has reduced the calcium caps on plaques that really is truly amazing because I believe even Esselstyn doubted that could be done. Is this what is happening in Davis's program?

Dolores

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietH or anyone. Can you point me to a study that shows stabilization of plaques and reversal also using a very low carb, high fat diet? Not risk factor improvements, but angiograms. Does Davis use angiograms in his track your plaque program? If he has reduced the calcium caps on plaques that really is truly amazing because I believe even Esselstyn doubted that could be done. Is this what is happening in Davis's program?

Hi Dolores,He uses calcium CT scans,sometimes 64 slice that can even pick up soft plaque.He claims regression of calcium score.For various reasons I'm not sure I would trust what he claims but I don't really know.He has removed several of my posts which were challenging in nature and as you probably know I don't fully trust anyone who rejects open debate.He does not use angiograms but does present some evidence in his book that angiogram data correlates with calcium score reduction.I have his book which is now about 4-6 yrs old.

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:low fat vegan dietHi Dolores,He uses calcium CT scans,sometimes 64 slice that can even pick up soft plaque.He claims regression of calcium score.For various reasons I'm not sure I would trust what he claims but I don't really know.He has removed several of my posts which were challenging in nature and as you probably know I don't fully trust anyone who rejects open debate.He does not use angiograms but does present some evidence in his book that angiogram data correlates with calcium score reduction.I have his book which is now about 4-6 yrs old.

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

The opinions expressed in WebMD Communities are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. Communities are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.

Do not consider Communities as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.